ISSN 2076-7099 Психологический журнал Lamdan / Ламдан Международного университета природы, общества и человека «Дубна» № 3, с. 66-76, 2013 Dubna Psychological Journal www.psyanima.ru Who had illusions? Alexander R. Luria’s Central Asian experiments on optical illusions1 Eli Lamdan2 The ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas. Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels The German Ideology The history of the Central Asian scientific expeditions of Luria and his colleagues is an exciting history of science in action. It has all the elements that make the history of science such a fascinating field - science, ideology, politics, and human interest. On engaging with this story, my attention was particularly attracted by the experiments on optical illusions. I am not an expert in the psychology of perception, but as a neophyte historian of science with a scientific background, I prefer to commence any historical analysis of an episode of science with an analysis of its experimental component. The experiments were of particular interest to me here for the simple reason that here we have documented inconsistent results and a disagreement between the leading members of the expedition. In this article I will try to reconstruct this episode, as far as the documentation that we have allows. I hope that this will provide us with a foundation, upon which we can build in the future a more accurate reconstruction of Luria's Central Asian expeditions. A brief history of the Central Asian expeditions3 The first evidence that Vygotsky and Luria had the idea of conducting an experimental study of mental processes in "primitive" peoples is found in letters of Vygotsky from 1929, written during his visit to Tashkent (Vygotsky and Puzyrei 2004). It seems that on this visit he undertook some preliminary experiments, about which we actually do not know anything. Despite earlier attempts of Luria to attract foreign scientists and organizations to the project, the first expedition led by Luria took place in the summer of 1931, with the participation of only Soviet scientists and with the financial support of only Soviet institutions (Yasnitsky 2013). Luria and Vygotsky considered the results of this expedition as very interesting and promising. They saw them as a confirmation of their hypotheses regarding changes of mental processes under the influence of the social changes then taking place in the Central Asian society. Therefore, they immediately set about organizing another expedition. Luria tried, once again, to attract the attention of the foreign scientific public. He published an account of the expedition in a series of international scientific journals (Luria 1931a, 1931b, 1932a, 1932b) and continued personal correspondence with Western colleagues in an attempt to attract one of them to the second expedition (Yasnitsky 2013). 1 The author expresses his deep gratitude to Anton Yasnitsky for his sustained engagement with his work. He also wishes to thank Oleg Goncharov for assistance in the identification of optical illusions and advice concerning the psychology of perception. And last but not least, thanks to my advisors, Othniel Dror and Jonathan Dekel-Chen. 2 The Department of General History and the Program for History, Philosophy, and Sociology of Science, Technology, and Medicine, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem 3 For more detailed description of the expeditions and their context see the articles of Anton Yasnitsky (Yasnitsky 2013) and Hannah Proctor (Proctor 2013) in this issue. 66 ISSN 2076-7099 Психологический журнал Lamdan / Ламдан Международного университета природы, общества и человека «Дубна» № 3, с. 66-76, 2013 Dubna Psychological Journal www.psyanima.ru Luria was successful. The second expedition, which took place in 1932, was joined by the well-known German-American psychologist Kurt Koffka. Koffka was responsible for conducting experiments on optical illusions. The results of this second expedition were published with some delay and in a brief form in the Western scientific press, but despite the promises of the author, they were not subsequently developed further (Luria, 1933, 1934). Only in 1974 did Luria publish a book, Ob istoricheskom razvitii poznavatel'nykh protsessov (The historical development of cognitive processes), in which he summarized the results of these two expeditions. According to the received wisdom, this long silence was the result of the political criticism directed at Vygotsky and Luria after these expeditions, which entailed that Luria did not have the opportunity to continue this line of research (Joravsky 1989, 364-367; Luria 1994, 66-69). Recent studies are beginning to challenge this version, however, and the present article is intended to make a further, modest contribution to the critical revision of this traditional story. Studies of optical illusions - the structure of the experiments and their results We now turn to the analysis of the optical illusions experiments of the expeditions. Our analysis will be based on the following sources: Luria's foreign publications dealing, albeit briefly, with both expeditions (Luria 1931a; 1931b; 1932a; 1932b; 1933; 1934), a letter from Luria to Wolfgang Köhler of December 3, 1931, in which he informed Köhler of the results of the first expedition (archived handwritten document in German), and, finally, Luria's late book dedicated to this episode (Luria 1974).4 Description of the research methodology can be found only in the later publications, written decades after the expedition. Even here we have no exhaustive description, and we are left with many questions. In both expeditions the subjects were divided into five groups: (1) Ichkari women living in remote villages who were illiterate and not involved in any modern social activities. There were still a considerable number of such women at the time our study was made. Interviews were conducted by women, since they alone had the right to enter the women's quarters. (2) Peasants in remote villages, who continued to maintain an individualistic economy, to remain illiterate, and to involve themselves in no way with socialized labor. (3) Women who attended short-term courses in the teaching of kindergarteners. As a rule, they still had no formal education and almost no literacy training. (4) Active kolkhoz (collective farm) workers and young people who had taken short courses. They actively involved themselves in running the farms – as chairmen, holders of kolkhoz offices, or brigade leaders. They had considerable experience in planning production, in distributing labor, and in taking stock of work output. They dealt with other kolkhoz members and had acquired a much broader outlook than had the isolated peasants. But they had attended school only briefly, and many were still barely literate. (5) Women students admitted to a teachers' school after two or three years of study. Their educational qualifications, however, were still fairly low. (Luria 1974, 27) In his book Luria explains how best to deal with participants on order to achieve adequate results: As in any fieldwork with people, then, we emphasized preliminary contact with the population; we tried to establish friendly relations so that the experimental run-throughs seemed natural and unaggressive. Hence we were careful never to conduct hasty or unprepared presentations of the test materials. As a rule our experimental sessions began with long conversations (sometimes repeated) with the subjects in the relaxed atmosphere of a tea house – where the villagers spent most of their free time – or in camps in the fields and mountain pastures around the evening campfire. These talks were frequently held in groups; even in interviews with one person alone, the experimenter and the other subjects formed a group of two or three, listening attentively and sometimes offering remarks. The 4 This last was partially published in the biography of Alexander Luria written by his daughter (Luria 1994) and in an article written by Anton Yasnitsky (Yasnitsky 2013). 67 ISSN 2076-7099 Психологический журнал Lamdan / Ламдан Международного университета природы, общества и человека «Дубна» № 3, с. 66-76, 2013 Dubna Psychological Journal www.psyanima.ru talk often took the form of an exchange of opinion between the participants, and two or three subjects might solve a particular problem simultaneously, each proposing an answer. Only gradually did the experimenters introduce the prepared tasks, which resembled the “riddles” familiar to the population and thus seemed like a natural extension of the conversation. (Luria 1974, 28) Such reasoning seems, at first sight, absolutely convincing; but further reflection generates some confusion and gives rise to a number of questions which, unfortunately, have no answers. For example, how is it possible to conduct a free and relaxed conversation with women who live according to traditional Islamic laws and do not come out of the women's half of the house (Ichkari)? For sure, Luria tells us that they were interviewed only by women, but how did they get in? With which excuse could they enter? How did "the husband and the master" look at all this? Again, and in relation to the second group, we can ask what was the attitude of the "independent farmers" to the scientists who came from outside? Were they not afraid of them? And to what extent could a casual conversation take place between them in the midst of collectivization when any one of these strangers might appear to the farmers to be a representative of the government, and